Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) Options

[EricBarbour]

Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still able to edit WP.

How? By getting his court-appointed minder to edit for him, apparently.

Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned here.

Why is his account still active?

[everyking]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

[Apathetic]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

[Eva Destruction]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

[CharlotteWebb]

UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!

As he seems to acknowledge sharing his password, other speculation might be completely moot. Still I can't help but inquire about the significance of 1960 in this context.

A quick search reveals that certain formerly copyright-protected works published in Canada before 1960 are public domain they meet other specific criteria, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant.

Might censorship laws in his jurisdiction have some kind of grand-father clause (assuming the prevailing theory is true)?

[everyking]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

[Apathetic]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?

[Viridae]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

[GlassBeadGame]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

[EricBarbour]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy?

One, two.
And even weirder.

Most of the discussion is in a "restricted area".....sorry.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Viridae]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).

[CharlotteWebb]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

[Viridae]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

[GlassBeadGame]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

[everyking]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

[GlassBeadGame]

Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?

Eric said that Herostratus was "apparently" convicted of possessing child porn.

I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it.

If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

You have no perspective whatsoever. Editing an on-line "encyclopedia" is not a basic human right. If a person presents any risk to children at all just don't let them participate. This is especially true in the absence of any vetting or supervision. This is not some crappy little "deletion review" debate on Wikipedia and your "slippery slope" argument is so out of context as to mark you as hopeless case.

[Malleus]

Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.

I think you overstate your case. Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages "child and adult collaboration". Indeed it's often impossible to tell who's the child and who's the adult.

Surely the only possible real world danger that a wikipedia encounter might involve would come from private email communications?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[EricBarbour]

I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?

Jeez, EK, you're really making me wonder about what is rattling around loose in your skull. Look at the guy's edit history--an obsessive interest in child-adult sex and child-adult sex related articles. Legal authorities have seen fit to ban him from all internet usage. (A ban he is trying to sneak past.)

Are you willing to follow him around on-wiki (along with a number of other unbanned pedophilia-interested types) and insure all his edits are properly neutral and meet general community standards? If not, then where do you get the idea that the general public would find this "acceptable"?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Tarc]

While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.

Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement?

But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.

Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.

He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).

Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Malleus]

Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Presumably that was his court appointed proxy again. What a joke.